The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant succeeded to the rights and obligations of the State related to the Changdong Station and the status under the instant agreement on the promotion of the project, since the Defendant received not only the Defendant’s investment in kind from the State (railroad) as an operating asset, but also the Defendant also concluded a construction work agreement with the Changdong Station Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Changdong Station”), based on its status, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s management asset-related rights and obligations under the instant agreement on the promotion of the project as a matter of course include the rights and obligations and contractual status of the KR as stipulated under the instant agreement on the management asset that the Defendant received and succeeded to the investment in kind by the State, in light of the developments and contents of the instant agreement on the promotion of the project.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of succession and interpretation of intent, by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, or by inconsistency the reasons

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, as to the Plaintiff’s primary assertion that the Korea Railroad or the Defendant formed an association relationship as a co-implementer of the Changdong History and the instant Changdong History Project, the association agreement under the Civil Act is an agreement under which two or more persons mutually invest and jointly operate a business, and is limited to the agreement under which they jointly operate a specific business.